Editor:
An election upcoming in B.C. for the Liberal party government involves recently giving millions of dollars to different interest groups, which pretty much is a way to buy votes. Aboriginal Nations across B.C. are also included in these promises of millions. Although there has been much conflict in past and present between the government and Aboriginal Peoples, there’s one way to silence the issues – money.
How are the current pursuits of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR) just and democratic for all Canadians? I don’t believe John Rustad, the minister of the MARR, can properly answer this question for us in B.C. Set up two proper public debates between us and I’ll show you.
Anyone with advanced understanding of conflict resolution and justice knows that the MARR is more about business negotiations than reconciliation, unless you’d like to include money in the definition to buy reconciliation.
Before 2014, the Liberal party government was its quest for natural resource developments, pushed beyond moderation. One dispute between the Tsilhquot’in and the province went to the B.C. Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC decision in 2014 gave the Tsilhquot’in aboriginal title to land. At last, their aboriginal land can only be developed through consent. This precedence is great for First Nations people across Canada; however, perhaps consent could have been issued by the Liberal party government prior to using our tax dollars in court. How does this relate to justice and democracy?
Misrepresentation of the SCC decision and voters. Not respecting the SCC decision enough is still current. One of the few tests of accountability and capability we have in democracy is a fair debate in public. A statesman like Rustad can’t say he’s the best unless he can handle the public debate test. We should generally attend debates and see who is most competent, not only who is best at ads and talk and giving back tax money.
Mr. Rustad and I should agree to some specific guidelines of fairness. So, what constitutes a fair discussion and debate? We must justify the process to justify the outcome. Imagine if hockey teams only advertised who is better without a fair game to prove it. That would be lame. Also, imagine if a hockey game was won with money instead of skill? There would be no point in having an event, for we couldn’t say who proved most capable.
How about a little challenge of the truth in a debate within three weeks from now in Burns Lake and Prince George? Democracy must have a fair competition to prove who is the best. Debates ought to demonstrate fairness in order to show capability. Real winners win fairly, that is the proof.
Let’s see whether Mr. Rustad is brave and capable enough to enter a fair competition… or needs to rely too much on your tax dollars to buy more votes.
Sincerely,
Al Trampuh
Vanderhoof, B.C.